Case in point: https://theonion.com/hijackers-surprised-to-find-selves-in-h...

And, as you say, in Chuck Norris' case, it's virtually obligatory.

https://markloveshistory.com/2018/01/06/death-had-to-take-ro...

> #1: "Chuck Norris was bitten by a cobra, and after five days of excruciating pain ... the cobra died."

The app probably used his pictures or his name, which are easy candidates for copyright or trademark-claims.

You underestimate how popular Walker, Texas Ranger was. It wasn't pulling ratings like Seinfeld, ER, or Friends, but it was a solid primetime staple for almost a decade.

I never watched it myself, but the 50+ demo loved it.

You’re assuming the jokes make people dive deeper. In reality I know the jokes and didn’t have a clue who he was and never cared enough to find out. The reality is the probably didn’t make much of a difference to how well he or his work was actually known.

Isn't that an obligation when you own a trademark? That you sue people, or else you may lose the trademark?

His round kick, Walker Texas Ranger and his fight with Bruce Lee. In Africa, to this day, some TV channels still play his stuff.

Seeing my dad, who grew up on these actors' action flicks, laugh himself to tears when Chuck Norris appears is one of my favourite memories.

It's been a long time since I read it, but didn't the current Death decide to retire and pass the role on?

For others, those who've read something, or know more, or think they know more, that symbol, that myth, has been ruined. The illusion pierced, the ugly reality revealed. They then look with pity, disdain and contempt at those who still admire the person. Or worse, they make the bad faith argument that to admire him is in fact to embrace those ruinous facts of which most are still ignorant.

Frankly, I think what you're doing is a farce. You're showing the world how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is. Ultimately you're trying to prove how dumb it is to believe in anyone or anything. If you look closely enough you'll find dirt on anyone. There is a contradiction: you claim a moral stance, but your "moral" position degrades the very idea of role models, heroism, and admiration itself. With enough scrutiny, admiration tends to zero.

The reality of the person is irrelevant. What matters is what they mean, what they symbolize, and the kind of archetype they represent. This is of course not true universally; some mythological people are alive, powerful, and dangerous and we cannot afford such kayfabe. But some are harmless and imply no endorsement of their misdeeds. Especially for actors, storytellers, artists, scientists and perhaps a few others we not only CAN afford it, we SHOULD do it, because these role models (or symbols of role models) are what make up the beating heart of a coherent culture.

I choose to admire Chuck Norris, Michael Jackson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Gahndi, Isaac Asimov, even if some deeds of theirs were wicked. I prefer to go through life admiring symbols of people even knowing that these are constructs. To do otherwise is to recognize the futility of admiration, and I choose not to live that way.

Of course they both had a change of heart- was it true change or they saw the direction of the political winds? Who knows?

I don’t know Chuck Norris’s views on LGBT. But if he was a self proclaimed “born again Christian” and a rabid Trump supporter, I can only guess. But I no more expect people who were insulted by what he said (which I personally don’t know) to give him more grace or reverence than I do is a Black man who couldn’t give two shits about a dead racist podcaster.

Other people no more need to “contextualize” homophobia than I feel a need to “contextualize” the racism of a dead podcaster.

They were obviously a bit more niche, but that made them funnier to my mind.

> For Bruce Schneier, all zeros of the Riemann zeta function are trivial.

EDIT: acknowledged. fake.